Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3
Date: 2007-07-21 17:30:22
Message-ID: 347.1185039022@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I was little bit surprised. Is any reason for it?

Are you sure you're comparing apples to apples? In particular the
default autovacuuming setup is entirely different. With autovac off
I see 8.3 as faster than 8.2 in pgbench.

Also, remember a couple rules of thumb for choosing pgbench parameters:
keep -c less than the -s scale factor you used for pgbench -i (otherwise
you're mostly measuring update contention, because there are only -s
different rows in the branches table); and use -t at least 1000 or so
(otherwise startup transients are significant).

Note to all: we ***HAVE TO*** settle on some reasonable default
vacuum_cost_delay settings before we can ship 8.3. With no cost delay
and two or three workers active, 8.3's autovac does indeed send
performance into the tank.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2007-07-21 18:18:27 Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2007-07-21 15:40:06 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3